Another Fucking Mass Shooting At US School

[Shadowy Man]

A sufficiently sweeping ban will stop most mass shooters but that's all you'll do about crime.

And that would be a worthy goal. I already said I’m not Compelled by the argument that if you can’t stop all crime there’s no point in stopping any crime.

Except the self defense cases exceed the mass shootings. If that were the only reason then the answer should be that we keep guns.

Again a false dichotomy. It’s not all guns or no guns. If there are people who want to use guns for legitimate self-defense they won’t be bothered by common sense gun laws.

And I’d like to see the statistics of AR-15s used in self defense versus those used in mass shootings. Do you have that information or are you speaking what you’d like to be true?

You have no reasonable way to sort out the mass shooters from the self defense people. Both will appear law-abiding.

that’s not an argument against common sense gun laws.

And just because AR-15 type guns appeal to people who want to make a statement doesn't mean that they're necessary.

And yet they all seem to use them.

But I think guns can be categorized by their properties, which include muzzle Velocity, cartridge size, ammunition caliber, rate of fire, etc. and then we can make reasonable assessments of what should or should not be subject to various levels of legal regulation.

Unfortunately there’s no political will to have that kind of discussion in the United States government.

 

[Toni]

Why aren’t school shootings enough reason to institute reasonable limits to gun ownership?

Why not reinstitute the 1994 ban on AR-15 rifles and similar weapons? Their ban doesn’t d reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings?

"Reasonable" is one of those words with a highly variable meaning and shouldn't be used in arguments like this.

And why we shouldn't restore it is that it was just an exercise in doing something meaningless. Guns are a spectrum, not a binary--you can't define what "should" be banned without encountering crazy edge cases where a trivial difference between two guns makes one legal and one not.

I have a pretty concrete set point, Loren. You’re just not willing to directly answer the question.

 

[Derec]

Why aren’t school shootings enough reason to institute reasonable limits to gun ownership?

The problem is not with "reason enough"; the problem is what is considered "reasonable limits".

Why not reinstitute the 1994 ban on AR-15 rifles and similar weapons?

Because it would not achieve hardly anything. So the balance between how restrictive it would be (millions of gun owners who like these types of weapons, vast majority of whom are law abiding citizens) vs. the good it would do is very lopsided.
I have noticed the same with you in other areas - if you do not personally use or like something, you advocate harsh restrictions on freedoms of others even if any benefit is questionable and minor at best.

Again, vast majority of gun crime involves handguns, not rifles of any type, let alone "assault weapon" type rifles you want to ban so bad.

If you look at the beginning of the chart, you can see that the 1994-2004 "assault weapon" ban did not do much to affect the rate of crimes involving rifles.
Crime rate involving handguns decreased from 1995-2000, but that is most likely due to the now much maligned crime bill, and obviously not the "assault weapon" ban.

Their ban doesn’t d reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings?

It would not. As the VT shooter has demonstrated, you can generate a big body count with a couple of handguns. Do not commit the logical fallacy that simply because most mass shootings in the news involve "assault weapons" that such weapons are needed for these types of crimes. Especially in confined environments like schools or offices, handguns are perfectly adequate for the purpose.

If say Salvador Ramos was not able to get his hands on an AR15 he would not have simply shrugged his shoulders and went on with his life - he would have committed his crime with weapons he could get his hands on. Columbine shooting happened while the ban was in effect - that did not deter Harris and Klebold.

By the way, there has been a new shooting outside a school yesterday. A gunman (who is still at large, but likely a fellow teen) killed two teenagers and injured two others. '
Juarez High School shooting: Police release surveillance photos of suspect
He did not use an AR15.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

 

[Toni]

Why aren’t school shootings enough reason to institute reasonable limits to gun ownership?

The problem is not with "reason enough"; the problem is what is considered "reasonable limits".

Why not reinstitute the 1994 ban on AR-15 rifles and similar weapons?

Because it would not achieve hardly anything. So the balance between how restrictive it would be (millions of gun owners who like these types of weapons, vast majority of whom are law abiding citizens) vs. the good it would do is very lopsided.
I have noticed the same with you in other areas - if you do not personally use or like something, you advocate harsh restrictions on freedoms of others even if any benefit is questionable and minor at best.

Again, vast majority of gun crime involves handguns, not rifles of any type, let alone "assault weapon" type rifles you want to ban so bad.

If you look at the beginning of the chart, you can see that the 1994-2004 "assault weapon" ban did not do much to affect the rate of crimes involving rifles.
Crime rate involving handguns decreased from 1995-2000, but that is most likely due to the now much maligned crime bill, and obviously not the "assault weapon" ban.

Their ban doesn’t d reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings?

It would not. As the VT shooter has demonstrated, you can generate a big body count with a couple of handguns. Do not commit the logical fallacy that simply because most mass shootings in the news involve "assault weapons" that such weapons are needed for these types of crimes. Especially in confined environments like schools or offices, handguns are perfectly adequate for the purpose.

If say Salvador Ramos was not able to get his hands on an AR15 he would not have simply shrugged his shoulders and went on with his life - he would have committed his crime with weapons he could get his hands on. Columbine shooting happened while the ban was in effect - that did not deter Harris and Klebold.

By the way, there has been a new shooting outside a school yesterday. A gunman (who is still at large, but likely a fellow teen) killed two teenagers and injured two others. '
Juarez High School shooting: Police release surveillance photos of suspect
He did not use an AR15.

Do you are saying that it is perfectly reasonable to allow the imperfect to stand in the way of the good.

Because there will always be terrible people or just crazy people who do terrible things, who decide to make as many people suffer as possible. We will never be able to stop all of the evil in the world. We must do whatever good is on our power to do.

Restoring the ban is a first step. It’s not the only step. We need to keep moving forward.

And yes, me must do much much much more to help people with mental illness.

 

[ZiprHead]

I notice that chart stops at 2016. Las Vegas happened in 2017.

US mass shootings, 1982–2023: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

The full data set from our in-depth investigation into mass shootings.

www.motherjones.com

Since 2017, both the numbers of mass shootings and the numbers of victims have gone way up.

 

[Shadowy Man]

I notice that chart stops at 2016. Las Vegas happened in 2017.

All three lines on that chart were ticking up at the end.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Why aren’t school shootings enough reason to institute reasonable limits to gun ownership?

Why not reinstitute the 1994 ban on AR-15 rifles and similar weapons? Their ban doesn’t d reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings?

"Reasonable" is one of those words with a highly variable meaning and shouldn't be used in arguments like this.

And why we shouldn't restore it is that it was just an exercise in doing something meaningless. Guns are a spectrum, not a binary--you can't define what "should" be banned without encountering crazy edge cases where a trivial difference between two guns makes one legal and one not.

I have a pretty concrete set point, Loren. You’re just not willing to directly answer the question.

The problem is your "concrete" point isn't--you act like we can cleanly divide guns into AR-15 and other.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

It's not a logical fallacy, but simply being sensible.

When you close path X you have to consider what the actual effect on people who wanted to take path X will be. When there is a path Y that is only slightly inferior to X you'll simply push them to Y and it will have minimal effect.

The reality of your assault weapons ban:

 

[steve_bank]

Around here we have slow motion mas shootingt happens over a few days instead of a few minutes.

 

[Toni]

Why aren’t school shootings enough reason to institute reasonable limits to gun ownership?

Why not reinstitute the 1994 ban on AR-15 rifles and similar weapons? Their ban doesn’t d reduce the number of deaths in mass shootings?

"Reasonable" is one of those words with a highly variable meaning and shouldn't be used in arguments like this.

And why we shouldn't restore it is that it was just an exercise in doing something meaningless. Guns are a spectrum, not a binary--you can't define what "should" be banned without encountering crazy edge cases where a trivial difference between two guns makes one legal and one not.

I have a pretty concrete set point, Loren. You’re just not willing to directly answer the question.

The problem is your "concrete" point isn't--you act like we can cleanly divide guns into AR-15 and other.

Quibble quibble

You know damn good and well that it is possible to set parameters. You are just unwilling to actually advocate to eliminate the weapons frequently used to massacre school kids because it might probably SS off your gun nut friends.

 

[steve_bank]

Guns are not going to be done away with.

The important quetion is uue is why the rise in gun violence. Teens are shooting teens in schools around here and eslewhere.

Ransom shootings on the roads. There has never been anything like this, and guns have always been around.

 

[Shadowy Man]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

It's not a logical fallacy, but simply being sensible.

When you close path X you have to consider what the actual effect on people who wanted to take path X will be. When there is a path Y that is only slightly inferior to X you'll simply push them to Y and it will have minimal effect.

The reality of your assault weapons ban:

Since you don’t know what *my* “assault weapons ban” would be you’re just arguing against a strawman.

I find it interesting that the anti-abortion proponents on the right aren’t dissuaded by an argument that there is no point in banning it because women Will just go somewhere else to get it. Yet somehow we are supposed to Give up on the face of such an uncompelling argument presented by people with unsupported opinions stated as fact.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Guns are not going to be done away with.

The important quetion is uue is why the rise in gun violence. Teens are shooting teens in schools around here and eslewhere.

Ransom shootings on the roads. There has never been anything like this, and guns have always been around.

We can address the problem in multiple ways at once. Certainly there are mental health issues at play and those should definitely be addressed (and it’s noteworthy that Republicans talk about this but don’t propose any policy) but that doesn’t mean that gun regulation can’t also be addressed.

 

[steve_bank]

It is not just mental healt as in crqaziness. Yesterday a young kid went into a gas staion and srted shooting at celng dmnding cash. There is video of it.

Teens and young adults are stealing cars and smashung them through store fronts. From surveilmce video very planned and well excuted, like you might se in a movie. Smash the car, grab, and out in a mnute or two. Armed.

Multiple shootings in pot shops and one death.

It has become endemic. It is not just me. A consensus among teachers, citizens, politicians, and police.

To me the problem is cultural. Old norms and prohibitions are disappearing.

Assault style weapons are not likely to be banned, and it is simplistic and polemical propaganda to say it will impact violence.

A 9mm with a bag of clips can be just as deadly.

You have blinders on if you are just seeing the mass shootings.

 

[Patooka]

Guns are not going to be done away with.

I need you to point out whoever is advocating taking away all the guns here.

 

[Shadowy Man]

Assault style weapons are not likely to be banned, and it is simplistic and polemical propaganda to say it will impact violence.

A 9mm with a bag of clips can be just as deadly

So why do we need assault weapons on the streets? If a 9mm is just as good why do so many want assault weapons? There’s a psychology at work here that needs to be addressed.

 

[Toni]

Guns are not going to be done away with.

The important quetion is uue is why the rise in gun violence. Teens are shooting teens in schools around here and eslewhere.

Ransom shootings on the roads. There has never been anything like this, and guns have always been around.

Not this many guns, with this much capacity, there have not been.

 

[Toni]

It is not just mental healt as in crqaziness. Yesterday a young kid went into a gas staion and srted shooting at celng dmnding cash. There is video of it.

Teens and young adults are stealing cars and smashung them through store fronts. From surveilmce video very planned and well excuted, like you might se in a movie. Smash the car, grab, and out in a mnute or two. Armed.

Multiple shootings in pot shops and one death.

It has become endemic. It is not just me. A consensus among teachers, citizens, politicians, and police.

To me the problem is cultural. Old norms and prohibitions are disappearing.

Assault style weapons are not likely to be banned, and it is simplistic and polemical propaganda to say it will impact violence.

A 9mm with a bag of clips can be just as deadly.

You have blinders on if you are just seeing the mass shootings.

Definitely not just seeing mass shootings (assuming you mean schools, churches, concerts, malls, movie theaters, etc.) here. But why not start there? Seems like a good place to start: Make it harder for people to get hold of weapons to shoot up elementary schools. Who can be against that?

 

[bilby]

This has to be some kind of logical fallacy. We shouldn’t put restrictions on one type of weapon because a criminal can always find a different kind of weapon to use if they are intent on committing a crime. Even if it’s not a fallacy it’s just not a compelling argument. Yet it keeps coming up over and over.

We shouldn't bother putting strong doors on bank vaults, because criminals will just start robbing post offices, or factory payrolls, or armoured cars instead.

There will always be criminals who steal money, so we might as well take the locks off everything.